[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Razgovory]

I think that would be covered in Muslims.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250722/t006a-eng.htm

In 2024

920 anti-Jewish incidents.

229 anti-Muslim incidents.

658 over Sexual orientation.

Incidents over race in 2024

873 anti-Black  That's the highest one.

321 anti-South Asian

Only 59 against First Nations.  I'm surprised by that.

So, Muslims + South Asians is still fewer than Jews...  Now I can't tell if "Indians" are in fact hated more, but the people who don't care for Jews are certainly more active about it.  Or is the national statistical office a part of the Alt-Right now?

[Razgovory]

I am not going to engage in the Charlie Kirk style of debate, where an outrageous claim is made without any support, and then the person making the claim says, "prove me wrong".

Well nobody did that, so I don't know what the point of this is.  Last year I mentioned that the people who are the best educated and the most intelligent are also the least open to changing their mind.  Because they are the most sophisticated thinkers, they are best equipped to dismiss new facts.  I think you have done admirably in demonstrating this.  You took two lines, that summed up arguments the author appeared to be dismissing, and claimed that since they weren't true, you didn't have to engage with any of it.  It's a very impressive act of avoiding the author's actual conclusion.

I provided a link to the stats from your government.

[Grey Fox]

Wtf are you going on about? Like the rest of the Western world, we have a significant muslim immigration that takes a little longer to adapt to the ways of Canada and it's significantly multicultural population. They'll get there, like every one else.

[Zoupa]

Raz likes to emulate his heroes by colonizing every thread to make it about his favorite subject.

[Razgovory]

Wtf are you going on about? Like the rest of the Western world, we have a significant muslim immigration that takes a little longer to adapt to the ways of Canada and it's significantly multicultural population. They'll get there, like every one else.

What does that have to do with anti-Jewish incidents?

[Razgovory]

Raz likes to emulate his heroes by colonizing every thread to make it about his favorite subject.

Oh, come now.  Is that a way to treat a fellow enjoyer of stolen land?

[Bauer]

Trade deal struck with China to lower tariffs on EVs and create quotas (3% of market), the same for Canola etc.

Carney calls China more predictable than the US.  Says Chinese EV plant in Ontario in the future might be possible.

Interesting deal, very curious to see where this goes in the long run.  Some argue we should just allow Chinese EV in but we can't kill our own sector like that without some kind of transition gameplan.

[crazy canuck]

Our Federal Court of Appeal just dismissed the Federal governments appeal of the lower court's decision that the invocation of the Emergencies Act by Trudeau infringed Charter rights.

A timely decision given the discussion of the importance of the rule of law in the threads about our friends to the South.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the decision for administrative and constructional lawyers that I won't bore you with, but I will probably find the factual weakness in the Cabinet's decision of some interest - the report cabinet had actually said there was no threat, but they did it anyway:

[219] Of course, the CSIS assessment that there were no threats to the security of Canada was
not determinative and could not bind Cabinet. The Federal Court and the respondents agree that
the GIC was not limited to considering the intelligence collected by CSIS or by its analysis of
that intelligence. Because of its expertise in investigating threats to the security of Canada,
however, CSIS's threat assessment should nevertheless have carried substantial weight; after all,
it is one of CSIS's principal activities to investigate, analyze, and retain information and
intelligence on security threats: X(Re), 2016 FC 1105 at para. 159, citing the Pitfield Report at
para. 28.

[220] If Cabinet was not satisfied with CSIS's threat assessment, it was always open to it to ask
for further information and analysis from CSIS, the RCMP, or other relevant federal departments
or agencies. In fact, it appears from the record that an alternative threat assessment was requested
by the Clerk of the Privy Council on February 14, 2022. Without going into the details of what
happened on that day, what is clear is that no alternative threat assessment was ever prepared
before the invocation of the Act.

[221] In the Invocation Memorandum which was prepared by the Clerk of the Privy Council
and that ended up being the last piece of advice that went to the Prime Minister, we find the
mention that "[a] more detailed threat assessment is being provided under separate cover"
(Invocation Memorandum, p. 2; AB, Vol. 1, Tab 5, p. 189). Yet the Clerk testified that "there
was no written detailed threat assessment provided under separate cover": Commission
Testimony of Clerk Charette and Deputy Clerk Drouin (excerpts) (November 18, 2022), Exhibit
D, Zwibel Affidavit, AB, Vol. 1, Tab 11.8, p. 419.

[222] Apart from the fact that no further threat assessment was provided to the Prime Minister
prior to his decision to declare the public order emergency, this Memorandum is significant
because it was the "culmination ... of the public service advice to the prime minister", in the
Clerk of the Privy Council's own words: Public Order Emergency Commission Testimony of
Page: 91
Clerk Charette and Deputy Clerk Drouin (November 18, 2022), AB, Vol. 6, Tab 13.8.4, p. 3245.
What is remarkable is that it does not contain discussion of any discrete risks of "serious
violence". In the background part of this heavily redacted document, we find in very broad
strokes a mere reiteration of the general concerns about disruption of the peace, the impacts on
the Canadian economy, and a "general sense" of public unrest. There is also a vague reference to
"slow roll activity, slowing down traffic and creating traffic jams, in particular near POEs, as
well as reports of protesters bringing children to protest sites to limit the level and types of law
enforcement intervention": Invocation Memorandum, AB, Vol. 6, Tab 13.8.2, p. 3217.

[223] In the part of the Memorandum providing advice to the Prime Minister, the only portion
dealing with the "threats to the security of Canada" reads as follows:
...while municipal and provincial authorities have taken decisive action in key
affected areas, such as law enforcement activity at the Ambassador Bridge in
Windsor, considerable effort was necessary to restore access to the site and will
be required to maintain access. The situation across the country remains
concerning, volatile and unpredictable. While there is no current evidence of
significant implications by extremist groups or international sponsors, PCO notes
that the disturbance and public unrest is being felt across the country and beyond
the Canadian borders, which may provide further momentum to the movement
and lead to irremediable harms – including to social cohesion, national unity, and
Canada's international reputation. In PCO's view, this fits within the statutory
parameters defining threats to the security of Canada, though this conclusion may
be vulnerable to challenge. (Invocation Memorandum, AB, Vol. 1, Tab 11.6,
p. 391)

[224] In light of all the foregoing, has the appellant met his burden to show that the GIC had
reasonable grounds to believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the
Act when it declared a public order emergency? Was there a reasonable basis in the record to
support the GIC's opinion? As troubling as the discoveries of weapons and ammunition at
Coutts, the talk of overthrowing the government, the serious disturbances occasioned by the
Convoy in Ottawa and the potential for serious violence that it created, and the economic impact
of the blockades at various points of entry may have been, were they sufficient to meet the test of
"threats to the security of Canada"? Like the Federal Court, we are of the view that they were
not

If you want to read the case here is the link https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/521758/1/document.do

[Grey Fox]

All this because they refuse to acknowledge that the Ottawa Police was compromised.

[crazy canuck]

Who is the they who refuses to acknowledge and what do you mean by compromised?

There is another section of the decision that explains that there is no evidence that police forces could not have dealt with the situation if they had chosen to do so. And unfortunately the Chief of Police in Ottawa chose the do nothing option - and that is maybe what you are referring to?

[Grey Fox]

The Liberal federal government and yes, they chose to not do so because they were on the sides of the convoy. Especially, it's chief.

[Jacob]

Interesting writeup on the Chinese EV deal and how it might play out: https://cardog.app/blog/chinese-evs-are-coming